California High Court Separates 'Disability' From
Federal Standards

The decision marks the Golden State Court’s
first attempt to address the
definition of disability under the state’s Fair Employment
and Housing Act (FEHA).
The ruling sets California’s
interpretation of a disability for employment and housing
purposes as a circumstance that “limits” a major life
activity, as opposed to the federal law’s more rigorous
standard that it “substantially limits,” according to a
report by The Recorder.

The court’s ruling sent
Francisco
Colmenares’ wrongful termination case back to the
appeal court for further proceedings. Additionally, in
a footnote, the court specifically disapproved the
rulings in five other FEHA cases that had been decided
on the basis that the federal law’s substantial
limitations test applied.

Background

Colmenares sued his employer Braemar
Country Club Inc, in 1999 for disability discrimination
after being fired following 25 years with the company.
Colmenares, a general laborer, had been given light duties
at Braemar since injuring his back at work in 1981.
However, in 1997, a new supervisor reassigned him to a job
involving heavy duties and then fired him two months later
for “deficiencies in his work performance.”

Colmenares argued that the firing
violated FEHA’s prohibitions against disability
discrimination. The country club said that FEHA
followed federal law.
In the initial trial,
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge
Ronald Cappai ruled in favor of Braemar.
A subsequent appeal to the California 2nd
District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s
decision.

Supreme Court Ruling

California’s Supreme Court
, in reversing the 2nd District
Court decision, noted that the state legislature amended
FEHA in 1992 to model the Americans with Disabilities Act,
with the exception of not adopting the federal law’s
“substantial limits” test. Further, California enacted the
Prudence Kay Poppink Act in 2001.
The passage of the act defined a disability as a
physiological condition that “limits” a major life
activity.

“Of particular relevance here,”
Justice Joyce Kennard wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court,
“is that the FEHA …used the term ‘limits,’ not the federal
law’s ‘substantially limits’ language, before and after its
amendment by the Poppink Act.”